Sethis, you voiced some very interesting questions.

I played competitive sports through college so come from a place of "I enjoy the game by winning the game". I would never cheat or gloat when I win and try not to mope too much when I lose but I definitely play to win. If I win I enjoy the game, if I lose I try to figure out how I can play better or where I screwed up. Quite honestly I can't really say I've ever "enjoyed" a game where I lost. I guess I would say I enjoy the opportunity to become a better player with a loss but not the losing. People enjoy the game in different ways and no one is right or wrong.

I would never have played with this strategy in a casual game. As I said it was pretty boring but to me securing the victory for the league was more important than having the most exciting game. As others have pointed out my opponent could have broken ranks and engaged me with a looser formation but chose not to. I think this was the source of my annoyance as it takes two to tango.

BTW, the Sun Tzu quotes are amazing. It blows my mind that this stuff is still as true as when it was written, what?, 1000 years ago.

Most historians agree that the Art of War was written over 2500 years ago.

It is chock full of truths that can be applied to any kind of zero-sum game or competition that involves strategy (including sports and business). Some of it doesn't apply to X-Wing, like troop morale, state resources and political alliances (which can be applied to sports and multiplayer games), but a lot of it does, especially Weak Points and Strong and Laying Plans.

Pogie, it's really refreshing to see someone with your attitude on these forums, and it's great to see that so many players here citing the Art of War and applying it's principles.

The work is public domain and the text can be read at MIT's website here: http://classics.mit.edu/Tzu/artwar.html

There's also a great video to help you understand the first chapter and also kind of show you how to interpret the rest of the chapters for whatever game you're playing:

I don't see any "jerk moves" in that post. I'm not sure how scoring went but the tie breaker should only be important in an elimination round so he could have played for the draw. Other than that playing against his strength is certainly the smart thing even if it isn't always the most exciting thing.

Anyone remember the Y-Wing vs A-Wing thread??? lol

You mean the one where the A-Wings got a lead and then just stayed out of range on the Y-Wings while waiting for the game clock to expire? Oh yea.

I hate forum topics like this.

even though the OP seems to be telling the story in a neutral manner he's not...he can't...he is trying to defend his actions.

if we heard his opponents side we would probably have a very different opinion on "who was right"...not saying his opponent is any more correct...but he will have seen events from a different perspective.

and the fact is there are 3 sides to every story.

your side

his side

and the real story somewhere in the middle.

You know we do get topics like this from the other side of the table as well although they often turn really ugly fast as people start pointing out where the OP's stance on something is wrong. I'm curious what the opponent would have to say as the only real "jerk move" would be saying you have the "win" because of initiative when it really would just be a draw.

The counter topic to this is usually the ones complaining about an opponent's bad sportsmanship because he wouldn't play the game in a way that gave me the best chance of winning. If an opponent isn't playing your game then obviously he's not doing something right probably doing something shady if not out right illegal.

I guess technically there is the question of would he have over committed if you hadn't brought up the time limit and lost as badly instead of a draw loss. Can't find fault with your strategy but there is an etiquette issue about talking to your opponent about the game in progress in any way that might influence their decision making process. I know it's taboo in like Chess and Go But that's a REALLY thin line to walk at any rate. I mean it's one thing in casual but another thing in events. And then there's the question of did you point out something that could just have easily helped them.

Don't remind me of the event where my opponent had gunner and forgot his second attack...until I got real quiet and looked at him like "...Gunner? Were youuuu goooing tooo uuuse thaaat?" Yeah I was winning before that reminder, lost after it. :/ So all in all, IF there was a jerk move involved it was the comment on game state however benign it was. Not the strategy.

EDIT: Wait, isn't a draw just a draw these days? No win granted on points?

Yeah, the win vs draw thing was an error on my part but with no nefarious intent. The TO backed up this erroneous interpretation of the rules.

I think this is only an issue because of the win-loss imperative (I play chess and a draw is a valid and indeed common result), and the impact of the initiative.

How would the OP have played differently if the other player had had the initiative?

I don't know what the squad values were, nor whether the OP had in fact bid for the initiative, but am surmising that the squad values were the same and the initiative was determined by chance.

Side note - I'm not convinced that all methods I've seen used for roll-off are genuinely random - using loaded dice for roll-off is still non-random

I personally don't think that the outcome of the game should be based on initiative.

It is a useful mechanic for sorting out who goes/shoots first for equal PS ships, but only that.

The fault was his for not being able to come up with strategy to win. Period.

In casual game ya sure its boring so I would just charge in. But in a competition its very legal and very intelligent to do what you do considering. He is an idiot and a whiner.

Edit note: The rules misinterpretation is on the TO if both players did not understand the issue.

Side note - I'm not convinced that all methods I've seen used for roll-off are genuinely random - using loaded dice for roll-off is still non-random

You can always default to an old fashioned coin toss.

It is a useful mechanic for sorting out who goes/shoots first for equal PS ships, but only that.

Then how would you determine the winner, in the case where a draw is not an acceptable outcome?

It is a useful mechanic for sorting out who goes/shoots first for equal PS ships, but only that.

Then how would you determine the winner, in the case where a draw is not an acceptable outcome?

They way we solved things in Japan...

Rock, paper, scissors...that game solved ALL arguments over there.

BTW, the Sun Tzu quotes are amazing. It blows my mind that this stuff is still as true as when it was written, what?, 1000 years ago.

Because they're all obvious tautologies.

Every single one of them can be followed up with "Well, duh."

yes...it was a JERK.... it is a game of flying space craft...not sitting in a corner... ...fail...

yes...it was a JERK.... it is a game of flying space craft...not sitting in a corner... ...fail...

Phew, thank god that's not what took place. Maybe you're thinking of the fortressing debate a few months back.

So let's see... you played a competitive game within the rules and won.

Despite winning you have uncomfortable feelings, because your opponent had a bad time and hurt feelings.

Hmmm... nope, not a jerk, just another human being with empathy. It happens.

BTW, the Sun Tzu quotes are amazing. It blows my mind that this stuff is still as true as when it was written, what?, 1000 years ago.

Because they're all obvious tautologies.

Every single one of them can be followed up with "Well, duh."

If it is good enough for Gordon Gecko it's good enough for me.

You are placing maneuvers down, rolling dice. As far as I'm concern you are not stalling. If your opponent has his dials down before you and you are still looking at the clock before placing your dials down then that would be stalling.

I think there needs to be a designated actions per minute definition for stalling. If by the end of the round only 2 or 3 turns have gone then I might want to check and see who was staying behind. If over 10 turns have completed and the round ends then I would say there were consistent amount of turns so there was no stalling.

Playing the game defensively is not stalling. Not playing the game when you are in the lead, that is stalling.

How was he not guilty of the same thing? If he was also doing nothing to engage you, why should you be held responsible for that?

Want to address this part because it's something I've learned, and applies to pretty much everything in life.

We tend to judge ourselves based on our intentions and others on their actions.

So the other guy could clearly see the strategy and tactics he was employing and knew he wasn't just trying to stall out a win, he was actively trying to engage and win the other game. The OP however was just being a jerk and running away because he knew he could win without engaging. (I say that speaking from the PoV of the other guy, I don't actually think that.)

The fact that the OP also had a strategy and tactics he was employing isn't something the other guy considered.

I know there are some people who think, "It's a dogfighting game, you're supposed to fight!" But that doesn't mean I should fly right into the teeth of your build and let you shoot at me. I've played plenty of games where I've weaved into asteroids to foul up large ships, or sent one fighter off on its own to loop back around. You could consider both of those not engaging, but they're both still playing the game.

BTW, the Sun Tzu quotes are amazing. It blows my mind that this stuff is still as true as when it was written, what?, 1000 years ago.

Because they're all obvious tautologies.

Every single one of them can be followed up with "Well, duh."

Obvious to whom??? Military leaders even today forget the teachings on Sun Tzu...

BTW, the Sun Tzu quotes are amazing. It blows my mind that this stuff is still as true as when it was written, what?, 1000 years ago.

Because they're all obvious tautologies.

Every single one of them can be followed up with "Well, duh."

Obvious to whom??? Military leaders even today forget the teachings on Sun Tzu...

"He who knows where the big red button is need not fear defeat."

A man who knows his enemy's location and possesses near infinite munitions need not fear the outcome of a hundred battles.

Side note - I'm not convinced that all methods I've seen used for roll-off are genuinely random - using loaded dice for roll-off is still non-random

You can always default to an old fashioned coin toss.

It is a useful mechanic for sorting out who goes/shoots first for equal PS ships, but only that.

Then how would you determine the winner, in the case where a draw is not an acceptable outcome?

If the tournament/situation demands win-loss, and the players can't achieve it, the two possibilities that come to mind are:

- both lose

- coin toss (by TO)

Chess often goes for rapid/blitz playoffs, and if scores are still level after a few rounds of this, they use time odds (white has more time, but must win to progress, black just needs to draw).

A famous match between Smyslov and Hubner was decided by a spin on a roulette wheel and the legend has it that one player was red, one black and the wheel came up 0 on the first spin.

- both lose

- coin toss (by TO)

How is the first any different? We're still stuck without someone to progress to the next round.

Coin toss or some other random selection might work, but since there's a good chance the initiative was determined randomly anyway, what's the point?

Chess often goes for rapid/blitz playoffs, and if scores are still level after a few rounds of this, they use time odds (white has more time, but must win to progress, black just needs to draw).

A famous match between Smyslov and Hubner was decided by a spin on a roulette wheel and the legend has it that one player was red, one black and the wheel came up 0 on the first spin.

If the match has drawn, chances are it's used up all of its allotted time anyway. Throwing the rest of the tournament completely out of whack with a bonus round is not an option.

If it were me, I would never have mentioned that I would win in a tie breaker by initiative. You're not obliged to say so, and some players may interpret it as goading, or giving appearances that it was your plan all along.

Had you said nothing and the opponent did nothing he would be left with egg on his face for not having tried to force the play.

Having said something you put pressure on your opponent and so they made a drastic move that they may not have done otherwise and as such they probably end up blaming you for that pressure/mistaken move exasperating his already negative opinion of your strategy.

For the record I think you did everything correctly, just trying to give a third person view and point out how the situation may have been improved.

Sounds to me like the only unsporting aspect was running a large turret

If it were me, I would never have mentioned that I would win in a tie breaker by initiative. You're not obliged to say so, and some players may interpret it as goading, or giving appearances that it was your plan all along.

Had you said nothing and the opponent did nothing he would be left with egg on his face for not having tried to force the play.

Having said something you put pressure on your opponent and so they made a drastic move that they may not have done otherwise and as such they probably end up blaming you for that pressure/mistaken move exasperating his already negative opinion of your strategy.

For the record I think you did everything correctly, just trying to give a third person view and point out how the situation may have been improved.

I thinks that's a pretty fair assessment, thanks.